Posted on 01/11/2008 6:59:44 AM PST by jdm
Reason Magazine has long associated themselves with the Ron Paul campaign, if not officially endorsing him. Their Hit & Run blog has served as the heart of rational Paul apologetics, and in their skilled hands, that has proven essential to his campaign. Now, as the magazine has Paul on its cover, its new editor has the unpleasant task of looking a little more closely at the candidate, and Matt Welch finds it an unpleasant journey.
Has Paul really disassociated himself from, and "taken moral responsibility" for, these "Ron Paul" newsletters "for over a decade"? If he has, that history has not been recorded by the Nexis database, as best as I can reckon.The first indication I could find of Paul either expressing remorse about the statements or claiming that he did not author them came in an October 2001 Texas Monthly article -- less than eight years ago. ...
So what exactly did Paul and his campaign say about these and more egregious statements during his contentious 1996 campaign for Congress, when Democrat Lefty Morris made the newsletters a constant issue? Besides complaining that the quotes were taken "out of context" and proof of his opponent's "race-baiting," Paul and his campaign defended and took full ownership of the comments.
Indeed. Rather than claiming he had never read these newsletters, as Paul absurdly did on CNN last night, Paul claimed that he himself wrote the newsletters. Matt Welch find this in the contemporaneous Dallas Morning News report on the newsletters during Paul's 1996 Congressional campaign (May 22, 1996, emphasis mine):
Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation. [...]
In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.
"If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them," Dr. Paul said.
Matt has more examples of Paul's non-denials in 1996. Twelve years later, Paul wants people to believe that not only did he not write any of his newsletters, he never read them either. His role in the single most effective piece of outreach of his organization, he explained to Wolf Blitzer last night, was as a publisher -- one who didn't bother to read his own publication. These 1996 quotes put lie to his CNN interview answers.
Not only does this show dishonesty, but it indicates that Paul had a lot more involvement in the publication of the despicable statements found in his own newsletter than Paul or his less-rational apologists want to admit. The supremacists and conspiracy theorists surrounding his campaign apparently got attracted by more than just Paul's views on the Constitution; they read the newsletters and determined that Paul was one of them. His refusal to recant in 1996 and his explanation that he can't recall ever reading the newsletters today signal to them that he still wants their support.
People wonder why this matters, given Paul's fringe appeal. It matters because we can't allow this kind of hatred to get legitimized in mainstream politics again. This kind of rhetoric used to be mainstream, and not just in the South, either. Republicans cannot allow the party to get tainted by the stench of racism and conspiracy mongering. If enough of us don't step up and denounce it, strongly and repeatedly, we will not be able to avoid it.
Matt Welch and the people at Reason have reached that same conclusion in regards to libertarianism and their magazine. Good for them, even if it came a little late.
Or was he lying in 2001 when he denied writing the newsletter?
It was one or the other. Which was it?
Bingo. Do you think less of Fred because he was fooled by Aristide (when many others were not) and still refused to apologize for signing the form call for Aristide's restoration to power? Heck, Fred hasn't even admitted that he wanted to restore Aristide to power though he signed the form stating otherwise. Again, I'm really pissed off at Paul for this mistake.....but the I note that many others slide for theri mistakes and nobody, nobody calls them on it. Paul has apologized. When will Fred?
Or was he lying in 2001 when he denied writing the newsletter?
It was one or the other. Which was it?
I would say that posting non-existent links on a topic outside of the thread is changing the subject.
I ask again:
When Ron Paul admitted in 1996 that he wrote the newsletters, was he lying?
Or was he lying in 2001 when he denied writing the newsletters?
Which was it?
You can lie more about Fred Thompson to your heart's content later - just let me know about the thread topic: was Paul lying in '96 or in '01?
“You still have not made any effort to address the issue at hand. Will you ever address the issue, or will you simply continue to deflect?”
Try reading the thread - I did on 3 separate occasions, and linked to all 3 another time.
You’re just mad that Paul isn’t a supporter of killing babies, like your candidate is.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1952012/posts?page=10#10
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1952012/posts?page=16#16
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1952012/posts?page=48#48
The GOP ran a second Republican candidate in Duke's La House race as well. Personally I don't think Paul's worth that, if his district want's him, they're welcome to him.
Infowars isn’t paul’s site.
It’a Alex Jones site.
ROTFL!
Or was he lying in 2001 when he denied writing the newsletter?
It was one or the other. Which was it?
P.S. Who do I support?
You’re nailing them.
“It was one or the other. Which was it?”
Neither.
Read my previous posts I linked you to and then the following article, then get back to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_many_questions
Close...
More post production result...
Fred was lying more recently when he claimed that he only opposed the embargo on Haiti when he actually signed a form stating that he supporting the restortation of Aristide to power. He has still refused to address this lie or apologize. Paul has. Happy now.....politiicans lie including Fred and Ron Paul. but some are willing to amit it later.
“You can lie more about Fred Thompson to your heart’s content later - just let me know about the thread topic: was Paul lying in ‘96 or in ‘01?”
I answered your questions several times, and you are the only one who has lied about Thompson on this thread.
As I proved several times.
In fact, anyone who reads this thread in it’s entirety will notice that I corrected every one of your lies, and backed it up with sources.
Get a grip.
The agreed upon facts:
(1) There were newsletters published under Ron Paul's name prior to 1996.
(2) In 1996 Paul acknowledged authorship.
(3) Since 2001 Paul has denied authorship.
This means that Paul was either lying in 1996 or he has been lying since 2001.
It would only be fallacious to pose this question if it were not yet established that the newsletter ever existed, and my question were then being asked on the false presumption that the newsletter existed.
However, its existence has been established and is acknowledged by both Paul and by his critics.
Was Paul lying in 1996 when he admitted authoring the newsletter?
Or was he lying in 2001 when he denied writing the newsletter?
It has to be one or the other. Neither is not a logical answer.
So which was it?
Well said. Run Paul can go to hell.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.